![ORCID Icon]({"type":"image","src":"/templates/jsp/_style2/_tandf/images/orcid.svg"} "ORCID Icon"){kind=small}
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1111-229X
![Sample our Education journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5932/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Education.jpg"})
Abstract
In this article, we aimed to contribute to a fuller understanding of the complex social ecologies that shape students’ academic development by focusing on richer and more precise conceptualizations of mesosystem effects. First, building on bioecological models, we argued for the importance of collective influences, defined as influences from multiple microsystems that act in concert to shape students’ academic functioning and development. We identified three ways collective effects can operate: (1) coactively, (2) contingently, and (3) sequentially. Second, we demonstrated the utility of this framework by using it to organize a narrative review of 32 studies of the effects of parents, teachers, and peers on students’ academic engagement. The framework was used to classify studies, integrate findings, identify trends, and suggest directions for future study. Third, we explored next steps in the conceptualization and study of complex social ecologies, by incorporating perspectives that are more developmental, cultural, sociohistorical, and inclusive.
Notes
1 We used the term “effects” in two different ways in this paper. In the introduction, when discussing the overarching conceptual model, we use “effects” as a synonym for “influences,” in that theories of the facilitators of academic functioning and development hypothesize that interpersonal relationships causally influence these outcomes. Hence, conceptually, “collective effects” refer to how these three causal influences are organized and function together. However, in the literature review, the terms “collective effects” and “effects” are used only in a limited and statistical sense, in such conventional phrases as “unique effects” or “indirect effects.” None of the studies described here provides evidence of causal influences, as we point out in the supplementary sections on methodological critiques and directions for future research.